[note to self]Add a column for categories such as: Prevention, Infection Removal, something for stuff like ads that are not necessarily harmful but just annoying, online utilities, emergency boot utilities. Or maybe I should just use the first column for this and use different words or something.

I have an idea I'd like to try. It seems like I am pretty unhappy with just about all of the AV packages out there that are supposed to be total "Internet Security" packages. So, since we are all knowledgeable software users, maybe we can come up with our own suite of software that is, in a sense, DC-approved.

So, the idea here is not to have just one "best" solution. So we should avoid most of the programs labeled as "internet security". We need to figure out all the categories for software that we need, and just use multiple applications to get the job done. The first thing we should figure out are the categories. I don't even know how to do that! I still don't get the difference between a virus and malware, yet there are programs that are antivirus programs, and others that are anti-malware programs. And there are others that are ani-rootkit. I don't get it. So that will also be part of the discussion.

There can be more than one "best" per category, but part of the effort will be making sure these programs all play nice with each other. Oh, and they don't have to be free. So don't say this software is better than that because it's free (a lot of people do that). Also, let's not forget the "corporate" versions of the popular brands, which tend to be different animals than their more popular counterparts.

It would only be a GUI around several SDKs. If anyone has a few 10K to throw at initial licenses, then a few 100k to throw at the project, then it might be a maybe. Sorry -- I might be a bit jaded from being through this before.

huh? I don't get what you said. If you are saying that we are going to CREATE our own software suite, that's not what I meant. I just meant let's create a dc-approved list of software that as a whole would accomplish the same thing as the "official" internet security suites. All we're doing is recommending existing programs.

I know this has been asked and answered a lot, but I'm doing it again:If I have a normal wifi router, do I really need a software firewall? I've never felt like my software firewall was particularly useful, I just have it because I'm scared to take it off. I have no other valid reason for it.

I'm not disagreeing, but can we discuss this a little bit? I want to explore this in a little more detail. i'd like to avoid saying, this is the best and that's it. I'm sure others will have different opinions, no?

But if you're right, that would be a great solution. However, we are talking about a complete solution. What do you do if you happen to get a rootkit or anything that was able to get past the "live" defenses?

Of course, the converse is true as well: just because something is free doesn't mean it's bad!

I'm running MSE 2.0 not because it's free but because it just works and all of the paid alternatives that I have tried bog down my system (caveat: only current paid alternative I've tried in the past year is Vipre). Regarding the firewall, I'm behind a wi-fi router and am running pretty much EXACTLY f0dder's recommendation: MSE 2.x, Windows 7 Firewall, and Ad-Muncher. Haven't had a problem yet.

this is one part of the picture I don't get. I assume that my AV program will catch a bad file or email either when it appears on my system or when I go to open it. I can see wanting to be able to double-check something suspiscious before opening it, but why wouldn't this be pretty much unnecessary, belt & suspenders?

> on-demand scanningthis is one part of the picture I don't get. I assume that my AV program will catch a bad file or email either when it appears on my system or when I go to open it. I can see wanting to be able to double-check something suspiscious before opening it, but why wouldn't this be pretty much unnecessary, belt & suspenders?

With all due respect, I don't see why anyone would argue against this. It's not uncommon for something to get past your initial defenses. So, yes, it would be nice if you could double-check or just check something that you feel is suspicious. I don't see why someone wouldn't want to have that ability. Is it the extra software installation that you don't like? The space it takes up? The memory it uses? I don't understand why you wouldn't want this. it doesn't hurt anything, it only helps.

Great.Next question, is there another on-demand scanner that people prefer? Or is the MSE one good. How about on-demand malware scanning, or on-demand scanning programs that might do something better or different than MSE? I know that sounds vague, but again, I really don't understand the difference between malware, virus, rootkit. it seems like some products are considered antivirus, others are anti-malware, others are rootkit stuff, etc. To me, they are all just "bad stuff" that can get on your computer. That's the only category I care about. i don't care what kind of bad stuff. But if I need multiple programs to deal with the multiple kinds of bad stuff, that's fine. My goal is simply to cover all bases and I'll use the proper lingo when necessary.

i don't care what kind of bad stuff. But if I need multiple programs to deal with the multiple kinds of bad stuff, that's fine. My goal is simply to cover all bases and I'll use the proper lingo when necessary.

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is designed to supplement what an AV program does and to catch the things most AV programs are likely to miss. It can be used on demand or (in the Pro version) you can schedule it to run scans at a specific time. Also, its database is updated multiple times a day. I've been using it for about two years, and I like the feeling of extra security that it gives me. Since I rarely if ever have any malware on my computer, I can't say it has made a difference except to my peace of mind.

i don't care what kind of bad stuff. But if I need multiple programs to deal with the multiple kinds of bad stuff, that's fine. My goal is simply to cover all bases and I'll use the proper lingo when necessary.

Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is designed to supplement what an AV program does and to catch the things most AV programs are likely to miss. It can be used on demand or (in the Pro version) you can schedule it to run scans at a specific time. Also, its database is updated multiple times a day. I've been using it for about two years, and I like the feeling of extra security that it gives me. Since I rarely if ever have any malware on my computer, I can't say it has made a difference except to my peace of mind.

Same here. i like having it around. i really like these programs that "play nice" with your other security software. I know years ago, the rule was to NEVER EVER install multiple security software on the same machine because all sorts of things would go wrong. Is that still the case? I hope not, because all these programs do things a little differently, and it would be great to have a large toolbox of effective, overlapping, redundant software that wouldn't screw up your pc. It's nonsense that you can't have two antivirus programs installed. I understand not having two AV programs doing real-time scanning, but you should be able to have as many on-demand programs as possible. The developers should design their stuff in a way to allow for this.

> on-demand scanningthis is one part of the picture I don't get. I assume that my AV program will catch a bad file or email either when it appears on my system or when I go to open it. I can see wanting to be able to double-check something suspiscious before opening it, but why wouldn't this be pretty much unnecessary, belt & suspenders?

With all due respect, I don't see why anyone would argue against this. It's not uncommon for something to get past your initial defenses. So, yes, it would be nice if you could double-check or just check something that you feel is suspicious. I don't see why someone wouldn't want to have that ability. Is it the extra software installation that you don't like? The space it takes up? The memory it uses? I don't understand why you wouldn't want this. it doesn't hurt anything, it only helps.

Oh I wouldn't *not* want it, I'm just wondering if it would be a factor of primary or secondary importance. I actually am a belt & suspenders guy, but I don't normally use the context menu selection to scan a file or email (if I have any doubt I'm more likely to just delete it). I suppose the automatic checking could break, but if the av software scanned the file when it appeared and didn't find anything, why would it find it the second time through?

Not really a full blown on demand scanner, but I often use VirusTotal Uploader to double check a file.Also, I currently don't have any realtime scanner always running, and simply scan files when I download or move/copy them.

Not really a security app per se. But it's useful in that it helps you stay on top of updates to your installed software, many of which have serious security implications (e.g. Acrobat Reader, Flash, etc.)

The scanning process is very quick. Subsequent scans take even less time once your profile is populated. And unlike many similar apps, Secunia provides explanations and links to any recommended updates. Free for personal use.

Let's try to create our own suite for internet security.Let's try to create our own suite for internet security.

Secunia Personal Software Inspector (PSI)

The Secunia PSI is a FREE security tool designed to detect vulnerable and out-dated programs and plug-ins which expose your PC to attacks. Attacks exploiting vulnerable programs and plug-ins are rarely blocked by traditional anti-virus and are therefore increasingly "popular" among criminals.

The only solution to block these kind of attacks is to apply security updates, commonly referred to as patches. Patches are offered free-of-charge by most software vendors, however, finding all these patches is a tedious and time consuming task. Secunia PSI automates this and alerts you when your programs and plug-ins require updating to stay secure.

Note: the default installation is to load it on start up and to close it to the tray rather than exit out. I personally don't feel it's necessary to autoload or leave it running, so I suggest you just run it when you want to and close it completely when you're done.

A once a week scan is more than sufficient to keep your software current.

Very cool tool. One of the first things I put on any personal machine I'm setting up.

The only possible reason I could think of for running a 3rd party inbound/outbound firewall is if you were interested in seeing what your apps were quietly getting up to internet-wise. Most will be checking for and fetching updates. But some programs will also try to do quite a bit more 'behind your back' than you'd expect.

If you're suspicious or concerned about any of that, you'll need something that monitors and reports on both directions. Otherwise, stick with Microsoft's built-in firewall. When used in conjunction with NAT, and the hardware firewall that's found in most home gateway routers, it will provide more than sufficient security for general use.

I used to use Comodo. It's a very capable firewall. And Avira - an excellent AV. And...

Nowadays I can't be bothered, so I just do the Win7+MSE+HW Router combo - plus a few browser add-ons (NoScript/Adblock+/BetterPrivacy) - and some common sense I'm when out on the web or reading email.

After that, I call it a day.

I'll also use a few additional on-demand antimalware scanners if I'm particularly worried about something. But that's pretty rare.

So far (knock wood) I seem to be every bit as secure as I ever was without all the extra 3rd-party baggage bogging down my machines.

----------Note: if you're a heavy-duty "ru" TLD pr0n hound, or you like to cruise the warez and bootleg media sites, you might need something a little more industrial grade. But for the rest of us, Windows + hardware router will do it.

Since I rarely have any malware, perhaps I shouldn't be so concerned, but I don't like the idea that a malware program that managed to get on my computer could send out information without my knowing it. Thus, a firewall that works in both directions seems to me a good idea.